Bold claim: the pressure to publish in top-tier journals is fueling a toxic culture at universities. And this is where the controversy deepens. Academics say the push to target highly rated outlets before the REF is shaping a narrow, target-driven environment that undervalues other kinds of research outputs.
A critical report prepared by UCU representatives examines practices at the University of Liverpool Management School. It highlights policies that require staff to publish in journals rated 3* or 4* by the Academic Journal Guide and in journals on the FT50 list. The report cites this as a major source of worry for most staff surveyed (78 respondents).
The authors explain that success in these restricted outlets has become the primary metric for promotion and access to resources. This tunnel vision, they argue, narrows research agendas toward dominant methods and theoretical frameworks—often skewing toward North American perspectives—while limiting opportunities to publish in high-quality disciplinary, specialist, or interdisciplinary journals not on these lists. The result, they say, is a devaluation of books, chapters, and other formats, contradicting the university’s publicly stated commitment to diverse research outputs.
Journal lists are commonly compiled by universities and professional bodies as quick-reference tools to identify standout researchers amid a crowded field of journals. Supporters argue they help manage quality and streamline comparisons across many candidates.
But the Liverpool report questions whether this approach aligns with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Dora-signatory institutions advocate avoiding journal-based metrics as a proxy for article quality. The report notes that several respondents view the emphasis on certain journals as unfair, particularly for early-career researchers, given long publication horizons and high rejection rates at FT50 and other 4* outlets.
According to the report, pushing staff to publish only in these outlets can delay disseminating solid, field-relevant work that could find a home in other high-quality journals. Some academics are quoted saying promotions, sabbaticals, or other opportunities hinge on having an FT50 publication record. One person likens the environment to a sales setting where the “target” dominates every discussion, regardless of research area.
The internal push to publish in a narrow set of journals, the report argues, is driven by a belief that FT50 outputs directly correlate with a higher REF ranking. This, it claims, reflects a biased and unfair evaluation system that cultivates a fear-based culture, evidenced by persistent UCU casework.
Many institutions defend journal lists, arguing they don’t violate Dora’s spirit because they accompany other indicators rather than replace them. A spokesperson for the University of Liverpool states the university is a committed Dora signatory and emphasizes that publishing in FT50 journals is not a hiring or promotion criterion at the Management School. Instead, the university uses a robust output evaluation program aligned with Dora to assess research quality. The university acknowledged the UCU report, said it does not share its conclusions, and noted constructive dialogue with UCU on the raised issues.
Anna Morgan-Thomas, a professor at the Adam Smith Business School in Glasgow and former dean of research, argues that journal lists serve a useful function given the sheer number of business journals across many disciplines. She notes that with hundreds of journals to choose from, some criteria are necessary to compare applicants fairly. A 2024 study from her work found a strong link between publishing in 4* journals and achieving 4* REF outcomes.
She also cautions that relying solely on expert judgment for evaluating outputs, as Dora suggests, is impractical for business schools. It would require assembling the right committees and would be very labor-intensive. In her view, internal screening of papers is necessary but comes with trade-offs: devote time to guiding early-career researchers through publication or to reviewing already-published work to rate its impact.
In short, the debate centers on balancing standardized journal-based indicators with broader, fair assessments of research quality, and on ensuring that evaluation practices support diverse, timely, and globally relevant scholarship rather than a narrow pursuit of prestige.
What do you think: should universities prioritize a wide range of outputs and diversified evaluation methods, or rely more heavily on established journal rankings to guide decisions about promotions and funding? Share your perspective in the comments.
